Comment from CAITLIN WITT

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am an assistant professor in physics and astronomy. I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies' ability to identify and fund impactful research. Science relies on the effort put into peer review, and it serves as our baseline to determine the merit of our efforts. Large scale funding efforts are planned on the scale of decades, significantly longer than changes in political goals. Policy overrides would fundamentally change my funding landscape for decades. If my grants could be terminated at any time under Section 200.340, I would never be able to responsibly support my hardworking students working on fundamental research questions. I'm concerned about the feasibility of scientific funding with Section 200.340. Political policy and priorities are important, but fundamental science needs to cover many areas. If grant processes are narrowed, it will impact the integrity of the scientific grant process, and set back our progress in many fields for decades as we are no longer able to train students.